162440 Organizational factors associated with participation in a city-wide HIV-testing campaign

Tuesday, November 6, 2007: 8:45 AM

Manya Magnus, PhD, MPH , The George Washington University, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Washington, DC
Amanda D. Castel, MD, MPH , Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Health Services, George Washington University, Washington, DC
Tiffany West, MPH, MSPH , District of Columbia Department of Health, HIV/AIDS Administration, Washington, DC
Leo Rennie , District of Columbia Department of Health, HIV/AIDS Administration, Washington, DC
Donald Hitchcock , District of Columbia Department of Health, HIV/AIDS Administration, Washington, DC
James Peterson, PhD , Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Health Services, George Washington University, Washington, DC
Marie Sansone, JD , District of Columbia Department of Health, HIV/AIDS Administration, Washington, DC
Irene Kuo, PhD, MPH , Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Health Services, George Washington University, Washington, DC
Alan E. Greenberg, MD, MPH , Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Health Services, George Washington University, Washington, DC
        
Background: In 6/06, Washington, DC became the first area to distribute free rapid HIV tests citywide and implement CDC routine screening recommendations for all residents.

Methods: Uni-, bi-, and multivariate methods assessed organizational factors associated with kit utilization. GEE examined factors associated with requests, delivery, and returns, adjusting for dependence. Robust estimators of variance and exchangeable correlation matrices were used in Stata 9.0se.

Results: Between 7/06 and 12/06, 59,950 kits for delivery were scheduled. 45,229 (75.4%) kits were delivered to 48 organizations in 18 zip codes; 67.9% were medical organizations; 3.5% were returned. The monthly mean planned kit number was 1033.6 (sd 1681.9; 100 to 10,000); the mean actual kit number was 508.2 (sd 1163.5; 0-5,200). Medical organizations had more kits delivered than all other organizations (meanmonth 764.1 (sd 1537.9) vs. 212.6 (sd 171.1), ƒ"=460.3 (se 181.1), p<0.02). While only 25.2% of organizations offered their clients a client survey, non-participation was not associated with kit request or receipt. Organizations in 4 zip codes were more likely to receive test kits. 8.4% of organizations ordered more test kits than they needed (range 50-4,200), while 2.8% needed more (range -100 to -350).

Conclusions: The campaign successfully distributed screening technology to community, improving access to rapid HIV tests. The program offers the potential to increase HIV testing, reduce prevalence of unrecognized infection, as well as to ultimately increase the proportion of HIV+ persons receiving services.

Learning Objectives:
Learning Objectives: 1) Characterize organizational factors associated with participation in a city-wide, free, rapid HIV screening distribution program. 2) Describe differences in programs receiving and utilizing HIV screening test kits. 3) Identify at least three lessons learned from the screening program.

Keywords: HIV/AIDS, HIV Interventions

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Any relevant financial relationships? No
Any institutionally-contracted trials related to this submission?

I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.

See more of: Politics and Policy of Implementing HIV Testing
See more of: HIV/AIDS